What do you guys in the adoption section think of routine infant circumcision?

We adopted both of our boys internationally, and did not have them circumcised. They both came home at 6 months old, and in Korea they do not circumcise infants. I've never really liked the idea of circumcising babies in the first place, but there was NO WAY we were going to add to the trauma they were already dealing with for something not medically necessary, especially since it's a much bigger deal to circ. an older baby then a newborn (they would have had to go under general anesthesia in the hospital)

I also imagine the idea of doing this to a baby would have horrified their Korean first-moms since it is not something they do in their culture.

Obviously the circumcision fanatic claiming you would benefit from circumcision is promoting genital mutilation for no proven cause other than he thinks a mutilated penis looks better,...I guess I will leave that one there. I have four sons, and in each case, we took the whole baby home. It was a fight against some of he in-laws to 'save' them but my sons won. I must have changed a million diapers over the years and never once was there a problem (other than with the in-laws). Just a wipe with the baby wipe during diaper change, and never ever try to retract the foreskin. Now, my sons are teenagers (AAAAUUUGGGHHH!!!!) and still no problems. I think we surprised the in-laws because none of my sons died from some horrible, debilitating disease from not being mutilated as a baby. I agree and have used the same logic as you when discussing circumcision. If you want a cleaner, healthier baby, why not have his finger nails ripped off as well,...they collect more dirt,...and he will put his fingers in his mouth. In our twisted society, it would be criminal to take your child into the doctor to have his ears trimmed because you feel it would look better to have elf ears,....or take him as an infant to the tattoo parlor to have him covered in tattoos,...the childrens rights groups would be at your door in an instant,....but to take him to a doctor and have a useful part of his body removed is culturally acceptable. No, it is not,....there is a growing number of people who are better educated that our circumcision fanatic who question the need for this procedure, and realize it is male genital muilation, hiding behind a more culturally acceptable clinical name like circumcision. I have been restoring my foreskin for three years and I love the results. The foreskin I restore will not be a good as the one that was hacked off my protesting body all those years ago,...but it will be far better than living out my life circumcised. Mithras

My oldest son was a high risk pregnancy and was born at a very progressive hospital. they gave me information both for and against circumcision. After reading that there really was no medical reason to do it, I decided against it. this was over 19 years ago.

When my second son was born 16 years ago, it wasn't even an option in my opinion. The hospital (not the same) though thought I was crazy and told me horror stories about what could happen by not having him circumcised. Thankfully, I did not let them bully me into it.

My third son is adopted and he was circumcised. Since he was 8 when we adopted him, we obviously did not have a say in it.

And to Peter, I had never seen an uncircumcised penis until I changed my child's diaper, so your theory is incorrect.

My son's biological parents chose NOT to have him circumcised at birth. When we adopted him at six months, we asked the doctor about it - simply because we wanted to know from a medical standpoint if it would be healthier to have it done or not. Our son's health was our number one priority - not what the bio parents' wishes were. For us, medical concerns were even more priority since our son suffers from a life-threatening disorder. The doctors felt that it would be too traumatic at the age of 6 months to have it done and that it would not cause any problems for his medical disorder so there was no need to have it done. We concurred. We would have only agreed to go against the bio parents' wishes had it been a health issue for our child. HE was our #1 priority at that point.

"We have circumcised our boys here for over 100 years with no problems."

Dear me, take the rose coloured glasses off. No problems? You keep telling yourself that, while singing the Hallelujah chorus and carefully never Googling "circumcision problems". I guess you also believe that we've been laying our kids face down to sleep, feeding them honey, and giving them solids from a few weeks old without problems too?

"Because we've always done it" is about the most pathetic reason to mutilate a child I've ever heard. And no, I'm not American. So what? Doesn't mean I'm jealous, or uncivilised, or ignorant.

My two sons were not circumcised at birth, but that didn't stop the hospital from trying to charge me for it. Unfortunately a while back one of them had to be done. These are 1 in a thousand that have trouble with the end of the foreskin opening up without tearing. It was never going to get better, in fact over time it would tighten up and close completely so they said. He would not have had a normal life even if it never got any worse, so in his teen age years we had it done.

God did I feel sorry for that kid.

How disgusting that people think that they have the right to mutilate an infant's penis.

Female circumcision is considered mutilation, and is illegal in every civilized country, and yet it's open season on males' penises.

A double standard, sexist and barbaric.

As a helpless infant, I was strapped down, assaulted, sexually molested and mutilated by the process of circumcision. This resulted in more than the usual nerve damage which made it impossible for me to achieve orgasm in normal sex.

I found out about foreskin restoration after years of now knowing what was wrong with me, and have achieved vastly improved sexual sensitivity and intensity of orgasm. While most don't suffer the extreme loss of sensitivity that I did, it's just another one of the side effects that the doctors never warn of, and another of the risks.

Those people who want to mutilate boys should never be allowed to adopt. If they can't leave the child the way nature made him, they have no right to alter his body without his express consent as an informed individual who is of age to know what exactly is involved.

Circumcision is the worst hoax ever perpetrated on the male sex.

A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

Wow i didn't know so many people in the U.S had circumsion as routine. I thought it was a religon thing. In India its only done by the people following Islam and thats a small minority-10-12%

. I just can't be in favour of any kind of circumsion but will not judge people for their religous choices either.

When my biological son was born (almost 16 years ago) infant circumcision was considered medically routine with validated health benefits. Now of course, the "health benefits" associated with circumcision have been disproved. We had our son circumcised, but if we knew then what we know now, we would not have done it. But at the time, we made the decision based upon the information we had available.

My younger son was adopted from Liberia at 5 years old. He was already circumcised (which surprised me, actually). If he had not already been circumcised, we would not have had it done.

I didn't adopt my sons ( I am an adoptee) but, they are circumcised. I believe in it. It is cleaner and heathier for the child. My husband is a Jew and so both boys had to be circumcised by a Rabi by the time they were days old.

Please don't say it will harm their sexuall health. Because if it did millions of Jewish men would have a bad sex life! NOT!!!

Jennifer

Mom of two circumcised boys and a little girl on the way!